Pollster.com: More Clinton "Message Testing"

[Adelante]

Pollster.com has a very interesting view on the "push polling" uproar.

First he makes it clear:

No, Ana, and no, Taegan, it is not a "push poll." TPMCafe commenter "slcathena" gets it exactly right:

It's not a push poll. It's just this side of a fine line between message testing, and a push poll, but it's not a push poll. Now, were it a 30 second to 1 minute call with just negatives, going to tens of thousands of people (ie, not a standard 300-1000 sample size) THAT would be a push poll.

Remember, a "push poll" is not a poll at all but an effort to communicate a message under the guise of legitimate research (more here and here). And let's give due credit to Greg Sargent, Ben Smith and the Iowa Independent's Chase Martyn for avoiding the "push poll" label altogether.

Pollster takes the matter further:

In this case, no one seems to be questioning the truthfulness of the messages tested (although we have not seen the verbatim text). What seems more at issue is whether these sorts of negative attacks are appropriate, even if technically true.

I tend to think if "technically true" they are fair game, but Pollster brings up the question of transparency, which I don't think has been an issue in polling historically. In fact campaigns routinely do not release much about their inside polling.

Last year, I argued that message testing polls "deserve the same level of scrutiny as any charge or statement made in the political realm." I think that works in both directions. We ought not holler "push poll" whenever someone tests a negative message on a legitimate survey, implying that the research is somehow more ethically questionable than running the same message in a television add. Similarly, we ought not exempt the testing of those messages from criticism simply because it is research.

And even further:

Don't put anything in a message testing questionnaire that you are not willing to publicly defend. If the Clinton campaign is willing to test the negative messages alleged above, they ought to be willing to take ownership of those messages and the tactics they imply.

Ooops: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/more_clinton_message_testing.php



For me, the interesting question: Should campaigns "take ownership" of their inside polling reports by bringing them public? I have to think more about it, mainly because I don't see it happening. So will Clinton have to think about it, though, and so will Obama and Edwards, who yesterday refused to answer questions about their own negative message testing if any.

Is campaign message transparency only good for when you get caught or should it be a goal of campaign reform?


------

Here are a couple of earlier discussions:

Is Hillary push polling?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3342504

For The Thousandth Time: Don't Call Them 'Push Polls'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3341316

[Truth2Tell]

1. So it's about "intent".

If the intent of the "polling" is to research the response to a negative message, then it's legitimate "research"(according to some). But if the intent is to SPREAD the message under the pretense of research, then it's Push Polling. This is regardless of whether the information is true or false.

Since we still have no real way to know which we are talking about in these instances - we therefore have no way to know with certainty if this is Push Polling. The best indicator of Push Polling would be the use of a sample size much larger than necessary to satisfy "research" needs.

Because the Hillary campaign won't answer questions about this, and Mark Penn isn't going to tell us his sample sizes - I think - based on the past behavior of both Clinton and Penn - that it's safe and fair to assume the worst until proven otherwise. Especially when they could prove otherwise with the release of a small bit of information, but they don't.

If it quacks like a duck, it's a Push Poll. Quack.

edit: spelling